Conflict of Interest (6)

If Indonesia is publicly committed to advocating for Palestinian self-determination in the face of Israeli Zionist aggression, then the sudden decision of an Indonesian prominent religious organisation’s chairman to invite a Zionist speaker—especially one he claims as a personal friend—would inevitably provoke a wave of moral bewilderment and political disquiet. Such an act would appear to undermine Indonesia’s long-standing diplomatic stance, not merely as a foreign-policy doctrine but as a moral position rooted in its constitutional ethos of opposing colonialism in all its forms. It would give the unsettling impression that private relationships are being placed above collective national principles, or worse, that an individual’s personal networks are silently reshaping the political and ethical commitments of an entire community.

In the public eye, this gesture would likely be read as a form of soft normalisation, a quiet attempt to smuggle ideological accommodation through the back door under the guise of dialogue or intellectual exchange. It would also raise deeper questions about whether certain elites feel increasingly detached from the sentiments of ordinary Indonesian citizens, whose solidarity with Palestine is one of the most consistently unifying positions in the nation’s contemporary political culture. The chairman may argue that dialogue is necessary or that hearing from “the other side” is intellectually healthy, but at a time of ongoing violence, dispossession, and humanitarian devastation in Gaza, such reasoning would appear unbearably tone-deaf.

The episode would be perceived not simply as a misjudgement but as a symbolic fracture in the moral coherence of national solidarity. It would signal that, even within institutions traditionally expected to uphold ethical clarity, personal loyalties and private ambitions can obscure the larger historical struggle Indonesia claims to champion. In that sense, the controversy would reveal more about the fragility of elite integrity than about geopolitical complexity.

Socially, the incident would accelerate a sense of cognitive dissonance among ordinary Indonesians who have long regarded the Palestinian struggle as an unquestionable moral duty rather than a distant diplomatic issue. It would fracture the shared emotional landscape that unites communities across class, region, and political background. The contradiction between elite behaviour and popular sentiment would fuel discussions in neighbourhood gatherings, religious study circles, and social media timelines, producing a wave of suspicion about whether certain powerholders have begun quietly abandoning the moral compass that has guided Indonesia’s international identity for decades.

Media framing would almost certainly amplify these tensions. Independent outlets would portray the event as a shocking breach of ethical consistency, highlighting how deeply disconnected elite decision-making can become from public conscience. More establishment-leaning media might opt for a softer narrative—perhaps emphasising “dialogue” or “intellectual exchange”—but the unmistakable undercurrent of controversy would still dominate headlines. Social media, on the other hand, would erupt into polarised interpretations: some would denounce the chairman as betraying national solidarity, while others, usually aligned with elite interests, might attempt to normalise the episode with technocratic talking points about “engagement” or “balanced perspectives”.

Across Indonesia’s political spectrum, reactions would likely reveal deeper ideological contours. Islamic organisations with strong pro-Palestinian histories would condemn the move as a moral aberration. Nationalist groups would frame it as a threat to Indonesia’s foundational anti-colonial identity. Progressive activists would interpret it as another example of elite hypocrisy in a political culture increasingly shaped by patronage, convenience, and personal networks. Even conservative factions, which sometimes avoid direct foreign-policy engagement, would find themselves compelled to distance their constituencies from the perceived betrayal.

The implications for the Indonesian President’s diplomatic efforts to champion Palestinian independence would be equally significant. Although the invitation would not represent an official government act, it would create the illusion of internal incoherence, as though parts of Indonesia’s influential civil ecosystem were drifting out of alignment with the President’s foreign-policy moral framework. This perception could weaken Indonesia’s credibility abroad, especially in the eyes of Middle Eastern partners who rely on Indonesia as a steadfast pro-Palestinian voice. Domestically, it might also force the President into the uncomfortable position of having to reiterate or even harden his stance, simply to reassure the public that the nation’s moral direction remains intact. In essence, the controversy would expose how fragile national solidarity becomes when private friendships and elite ego intersect with historical struggles that demand unwavering commitment.

From a political-strategic standpoint, rivals would immediately recognise the chairman’s decision as a ripe opportunity to weaken both his personal legitimacy and the broader moral authority of the organisation he leads. Opposition figures could construct a narrative portraying him as an unreliable custodian of Indonesia’s long-standing solidarity with Palestine, subtly implying that he is vulnerable to foreign ideological influence or driven by egoistic motivations disguised as intellectual openness. Political adversaries would not need to exaggerate; the emotional weight of the issue itself would magnify their criticism. This controversy could thus be weaponised to question not only his judgement but also his loyalty to the values that bind Indonesian society.

In the long term, the organisation he represents would face reputational turbulence. Civil society groups in Indonesia operate on moral capital as much as institutional structure, and once that moral capital is compromised, rebuilding public trust becomes an arduous task. Members may become internally divided, with younger activists demanding accountability while older elites attempt to downplay the incident. Over time, this fracture could erode the organisation’s influence, especially in moments when the nation seeks unified religious or moral leadership. Donors, partner institutions, and community networks might also become hesitant to associate themselves with an organisation perceived as ideologically inconsistent.

As for the Palestinian reaction, it would likely be shaped by a combination of appreciation for Indonesia’s decades-long support and concern about the symbolism of the incident. Palestinian diplomats and civil society figures tend to be acutely aware of how global narratives affect their struggle, so even a small gesture that appears to soften Indonesia’s stance could be received with disappointment. They may respond diplomatically—expressing gratitude for Indonesia’s unwavering support while subtly emphasising the need for continued clarity and solidarity. At the societal level, Palestinian activists and intellectuals might privately question why a country so consistently committed to their cause would permit such an ideologically charged invitation. The incident could thus create a faint, though not irreparable, sense of ambivalence about Indonesia’s moral steadfastness.

Ultimately, the episode would become a multi-layered cautionary tale about the fragility of moral authority in political and religious institutions. It shows how one individual’s personal choices can ripple outward, affecting domestic political alignments, organisational credibility, and even the sentiments of a people engaged in a decades-long fight for liberation.

From the perspective offered by Conflict of Interest in the Professions, the incident involving a religious organisation’s chairman inviting a Zionist speaker fits squarely within the broader definition of conflict of interest that Davis and Stark articulate—namely, situations in which a professional’s personal interests, relationships, or preferences threaten to compromise their role-based obligations. The book emphasises that conflicts of interest are not restricted to business, medicine, or law, but arise in any domain where individuals hold positions of trust, including religious leadership. In such contexts, the public expects decisions to be guided by the institution’s ethical commitments and communal responsibilities, not by personal loyalties or private ideological sympathies.

What makes the chairman’s decision especially problematic, through the lens of Davis and Stark, is that religious figures bear a heightened fiduciary responsibility: they are entrusted with representing the community's moral stance and acting in ways that preserve integrity, solidarity, and doctrinal consistency. When a personal friendship—in this case, with a Zionist speaker — influences a public action that contradicts the organisation’s moral posture and the nation’s political values, it creates a textbook example of what the editors describe as a “role conflict”: a clash between the obligations of the office and the desires of the individual. The book makes clear that even if no tangible corruption occurs, the mere appearance of divided loyalties is sufficient to undermine the institution's legitimacy. And the problem is, there are rumours of alleged money laundering worth Rp. 100 billion.

The invitation thus becomes an ethical breach not because it involves financial misconduct or explicit betrayal but because it introduces ambiguity into a role that demands clarity. Davis and Stark insist that conflicts of interest erode trust precisely by creating uncertainty about whose interests are being served. In this case, the public is forced to wonder whether the chairman is acting as a guardian of communal ethics or as a private individual indulging his personal connections. The resulting confusion is exactly the type of institutional harm Davis and Stark warn about: the weakening of moral authority, the erosion of public confidence, and the possibility that the institution’s mission becomes subtly distorted by individual ambition.

In that sense, the episode is a powerful reminder that religious organisations are no less vulnerable to conflicts of interest than corporations or government agencies. The moral weight they carry, and the symbolic expectations placed upon them, mean that even small deviations can produce large-scale disruptions. The chairman’s decision illustrates how easily the integrity of a faith-based institution can be compromised when personal ties are allowed to override professional and moral duties.

Conflicts of interest have repeatedly shaped historical outcomes by influencing decisions at the highest levels of power. One prominent example is the lead-up to the 2008 global financial crisis. Executives in major financial institutions held personal stakes in high-risk mortgage-backed securities while simultaneously advising or influencing corporate strategy. Their dual commitments—to maximise personal and institutional profit—led to risky lending, opaque financial products, and ultimately a global economic collapse. The crisis reshaped economies worldwide, led to widespread unemployment, and triggered regulatory reforms such as the Dodd-Frank Act in the United States.

Another historical illustration is the Watergate scandal in the United States (1972–1974). Key officials within President Nixon’s administration allowed personal and political loyalties to override legal and ethical duties. Their conflict of interest—between self-preservation, party loyalty, and constitutional responsibility—led to cover-ups and abuses of power. The scandal not only forced the resignation of a U.S. president but also strengthened American institutional checks and oversight mechanisms, reshaping political accountability norms.

In the corporate and political sphere, Enron’s collapse in 2001 demonstrates how conflicts of interest can have national and global implications. Executives who acted as both auditors and consultants to Enron manipulated accounting practices to serve personal gains. This dual role undermined transparency, led to massive investor losses, and contributed to broader regulatory changes like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, fundamentally altering corporate governance standards worldwide.

Even in scientific history, conflicts of interest have affected global outcomes. For instance, pharmaceutical companies influencing research on harmful drugs—such as early concealment of health risks in the case of Vioxx—delayed regulatory interventions, affected public health decisions, and caused thousands of preventable deaths worldwide.

These examples demonstrate that conflicts of interest are not merely ethical abstractions; they can reshape economies, governance structures, public trust, and even human lives on a global scale. History shows that unchecked dual loyalties and overlapping roles often magnify consequences far beyond the immediate individuals involved.

Conflict of Interest in the Professions presents the financial services sector as one of the most structurally vulnerable arenas for conflicts of interest, because the sector operates on asymmetric information, high-stakes fiduciary duties, and an institutional culture that encourages professionals to navigate pressure from both clients and corporate employers. One of the central arguments in the volume is that financial professionals inhabit roles that frequently combine advisory authority with opportunities for private gain, creating circumstances in which the line between professional judgement and self-interest becomes dangerously thin.

The contributors emphasise that the very architecture of modern finance—ranging from investment banking to auditing, financial analysis, underwriting, and fund management—contains built-in tensions. These tensions arise when professionals owe loyalty to multiple parties: clients seeking impartial advice, firms seeking profit, markets demanding transparency, and regulators imposing prudential rules. According to the book, conflicts of interest in this field seldom appear as explicit wrongdoing; instead they materialise as subtle distortions of judgement, where professionals rationalise decisions that benefit themselves or their firms under the guise of market logic.

The book also explains that financial conflicts are exacerbated by incentive structures that reward short-term gains, such as performance bonuses and client-acquisition targets. These mechanisms, when unchecked, encourage professionals to prioritise personal advancement or corporate revenue at the expense of fiduciary integrity. The essays note that such behaviour can be institutionally normalised, making conflicts harder to detect because the environment itself legitimises ethically questionable practices.

Moreover, several contributions argue that conflicts in financial services are uniquely dangerous due to their systemic consequences. When auditors act as consultants for the same companies they audit, when analysts promote securities they secretly hold, or when investment banks advise clients while trading against their interests, the conflict does not merely harm one party—it destabilises entire markets. The book uses these cases to illustrate how a failure to manage conflicts can erode trust, distort capital allocation, and trigger economic crises, making ethical safeguards essential to financial stability.

The book frames conflicts of interest in financial services not simply as moral lapses but as predictable outcomes of institutional design. It argues that regulation, transparency, and strict separation of roles are necessary, but insufficient on their own; what is required is a professional culture that recognises the corrosive power of divided loyalties and cultivates an ethic of restraint, even when the rules permit otherwise.

The Indonesian financial services sector exemplifies the structural vulnerabilities discussed in Conflict of Interest in the Professions. Institutions such as state-owned banks (Bank BUMN), investment managers, auditors in public accounting firms (KAP), and regulatory authorities like the Financial Services Authority (OJK) operate within a dense web of overlapping roles, loyalties, and incentives that create fertile ground for conflicts of interest.

Firstly, state-owned banks illustrate the role and influence of conflicts. Executives often balance obligations to maximise shareholder value for the government with political expectations from ministries and local officials. The dual pressures—profit versus political or social mandates—can lead to lending decisions that favour connected parties over economic prudence. This echoes Baum’s notion that overlapping commitments create structural ethical tension, where professional judgement may be compromised even without explicit malfeasance.

Secondly, investment managers and fund administrators face commitment conflicts. Many manage funds sourced from both private investors and government-linked entities, creating incentives to prioritise short-term performance to attract or retain capital. Their fiduciary duty to clients may clash with internal revenue targets, performance bonuses, or management directives. The subtle rationalisations to favour organisational or personal gains illustrate the kind of influence conflicts highlighted in the book.

Thirdly, auditors from public accounting firms (KAP) demonstrate one of the most classic conflict scenarios. When they audit the same companies for which they also provide consulting or advisory services, their independence is compromised. Historical cases in Indonesia—such as in Century Bank or Jiwasraya—show how such dual roles can mask financial irregularities. Conflict of Interest in the Professions emphasises that structural incentives, rather than individual moral failings alone, often underpin these lapses.

Finally, regulators such as OJK face their own conflicts of interest. They must enforce prudential regulations, protect investors, and maintain market confidence while also fostering a financial system aligned with national development goals. The need to encourage investment and growth may temper the strict enforcement of rules, producing a tension between regulatory duties and broader economic objectives. Baum’s framework clarifies that these tensions are predictable and systemic: they are built into the institutional architecture rather than arising solely from individual misconduct.

In sum, the Indonesian financial sector exemplifies how professional roles, overlapping loyalties, and incentive structures combine to generate pervasive conflicts of interest. The book’s argument is clear: without structural safeguards, transparency, and an ethical culture that prioritises fiduciary integrity over personal or institutional gain, these conflicts can distort decision-making, threaten market stability, and erode public trust.

One of the contributors, Taylor Cowen, in The Economics of the Critic, examines the role of critics—whether in literature, art, or other cultural fields—from the perspective of economic incentives and conflicts of interest. Cowen argues that critics occupy a unique position in which their judgments carry influence over markets, reputations, and careers, yet their own financial or social incentives may diverge from the public good. In this sense, the work explores how conflicts of interest are inherent in professional criticism.

Cowen highlights several mechanisms by which these conflicts manifest. Critics may have personal relationships with artists, publishers, or galleries that affect their assessments. They may also face pressure to maintain readership or visibility, incentivising positive or sensational reviews that attract attention rather than convey impartial evaluation. Furthermore, critics who rely on speaking engagements, awards, or consultancy work may adjust their opinions to preserve future opportunities. Cowen uses these examples to illustrate the subtle ways in which professional obligations can be compromised by private gain or social pressures.

Crucially, Cowen situates the critic within a market framework: the value of information, reputational capital, and the competitive pressures of the marketplace create structural incentives that often conflict with the ideal of disinterested judgment. The chapter demonstrates that conflict of interest is not simply a matter of moral failing; rather, it emerges predictably from the institutional and economic context in which critics operate. This aligns with the broader theme of Conflict of Interest in the Professions, which stresses the role of structural and systemic factors in generating ethical dilemmas.

Applying Taylor Cowen’s framework from The Economics of the Critic, the Indonesian media landscape exhibits multiple layers of conflicts of interest, as journalists, editors, and media commentators navigate overlapping economic, social, and political incentives. Cowen’s central insight—that professional judgement is often subtly distorted by personal or institutional pressures—is highly relevant to understanding these dynamics.

In Indonesia, media outlets frequently rely on advertising revenue from corporations, government contracts, or influential political figures. This financial dependency creates an inherent conflict: journalists are expected to report objectively, yet their organisations may be pressured to avoid negative coverage of sponsors or stakeholders. Cowen would describe this as a structural incentive problem, in which the market position and revenue goals of the media entity implicitly shape the professional behaviour of individual journalists.

Additionally, individual journalists or commentators may cultivate relationships with public officials, celebrities, or corporate leaders to gain access, exclusive stories, or social visibility. Such connections can compromise impartiality, leading to favourable reporting, soft interviews, or the omission of critical information. Cowen’s analysis suggests that these conflicts are rarely explicit acts of corruption; they emerge naturally from the economic and reputational dependencies embedded in professional roles.

Digital influencers and online media further complicate the landscape. Social media personalities who review films, books, or political events often receive sponsorships, affiliate deals, or invitations to exclusive events. The incentive to maintain audience engagement and commercial partnerships can subtly bias their opinions, echoing Cowen’s argument that the critic’s professional judgement is always intertwined with personal and economic considerations.

Finally, editorial boards may face conflicts between public interest and internal survival. Maintaining readership, avoiding legal disputes, or sustaining operational viability can shape editorial choices in ways that compromise journalistic ethics. Cowen’s framework illustrates that these pressures are systemic rather than purely individual failings, highlighting the structural nature of conflict of interest in media professions.

In conclusion, Cowen’s analysis provides a lens to understand why Indonesian journalism, like other professional fields, is vulnerable to conflicts of interest. The pressures of funding, access, visibility, and organisational survival create predictable tensions between professional duty and private incentives, underscoring the importance of transparency, disclosure, and professional norms to safeguard ethical standards.

[Part 7]
[Part 5]

Bahasa